Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Steve Renner <br />z <br />(4) suspension or revocation of a permit due to a pattern of violations. <br />None of the above listed actions were initiated by MI.RD at the Grassy <br />Gap Mine. In addition, a FTACO, which could trigger the alternative <br />enforcement procedure, was never issued in this case. <br />Prior to the successful completion of backfilling and grading <br />activities, MI.RD released approximately 70 percent of the bond held at <br />the time of the agreement ($312,376 of the $446,680 bond was returned to <br />the permittee). This reduction of the bond amount was based on <br />reclamation work accomplished but not yet meeting the criteria specified <br />in Rule 3.03.1(2). <br />Therefore, based ott the above discussion and the previous AFO <br />correspondence of April 10 and May 1, 1991, AFO finds MLRD's response to <br />TDN-91-116-4, violation 1 of 3, to be arbitrary and capricious and, <br />therefore, inappropriate. <br />If you disagree with these findings, you may request an informal review <br />in accordance with 30 CFR 842.11(b)(1)(iii)(A). <br />Sincerely, <br />Robert H. Ha Director <br />Albuquerqu Fie d Office <br />Enclosure <br />